WASHINGTON - Saving the life of someone 70 or older might be worth only 63 percent as much as saving the life of someone younger, according to Bush administration regulators.

Twice this year, the White House Office of Management and Budget told the Environmental Protection Agency to apply that discounted value when it was trying to assess whether new anti-pollution regulations would be worth the costs they impose on polluting industries.

The idea is that if a regulation would cut pollution enough to extend an older person's life, how much would that be worth in dollars, compared with how much it would cost the polluter to comply.

It is standard federal practice to run such cost-benefit analyses for any proposed regulation, but the OMB's proposal to value the lives of senior citizens less than younger people, which previous administrations of both parties also tried, raises serious ethical and scientific questions, some experts said.

V. Kerry Smith, the director of the Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, said his studies of workers' attitudes toward occupational risk found no significant difference between old and young when they weighed how much they would pay to reduce the risk of death.

"You could just as well say life becomes more precious the more you enjoy it, and you don't really want to cash in your chips," Smith said.

The 63 percent life-valuation measure is based on the principle that it is fairer to count the years of life saved by a government regulation than the number of lives, said John D. Graham, the regulatory chief at the OMB. The traditional approach values each life equally, regardless of age.

Graham ordered the EPA to use the new 63 percent standard in addition to its traditional approach.

Both methods "offer insight to policy-makers," Graham said in an e-mail interview. "These analytic factors are only one of many perspectives, including fairness, that enter into policy making."

The benefits of a potential federal regulation will be less when the cut-rate standard for life is applied in a cost-benefit analysis.

Earlier this year, at the OMB's direction, the EPA performed a cost-benefit analysis on President Bush's proposal to reduce power-plant pollution. It also analyzed a proposed 867-page rule to cut pollution from snowmobiles.

In both instances, when the number of senior citizens' lives saved was assigned a dollar value using the 63 percent standard, the proposed rule was judged to offer less benefit to society than it would have if all lives were valued equally.

For example, each life under 70 saved by the snowmobile rule would be worth $3.7 million under the cut-rate standard, while those older than 70 were said to be worth $2.3 million.

Some environmental activists and liberal Democrats object to the approach.

"They are not using sound science. They are simply trying to come up with a pretext to cut the value of health and safety standards in order to protect industries," charged Frank O'Donnell, the executive director of the Washington-based Clean Air Trust. "It is really outrageous from a moral standpoint to make an arbitrary distinction between the value of life of older people from the value of the life of younger people."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, called the idea "faulty science based on bad facts."

Other experts say the OMB's concept is reasonable but its application might need to be refined.

"If you have limited resources, it's more important to save 30 years rather than one year," said Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. "If you are extending a life by a year or six months, that's less important than extending a life by 30 or 40 years."

While the principle might have merit, the 63 percent value the OMB uses appears to be based on out-of-date and inappropriate science, according to experts in cost-benefit risk analysis.

The Bush administration bases its valuation on a 20-year-old scientific survey of British citizens, who were asked how much they would pay for a safer bus system.

The study's author - Michael Jones-Lee, an economics professor at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne - said it now was woefully out of date and doesn't apply to the United States.

Jones-Lee said a second study he did five years ago found only a 10 percent difference between what the elderly and younger people would pay to avert death. He said even that gap probably would disappear in America because U.S. seniors have a better quality of life than their British counterparts.

"The bottom line is the picture is fuzzy," Jones-Lee said in an interview yesterday. "I certainly wouldn't argue for my 1982 figure."

The bulk of scientific research in the field doesn't support the OMB's 63 percent policy, said James Hammitt, a professor of economics and decision sciences at Harvard's School of Public Health and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, which Graham used to run.

"It's really a social question that's wrapped up in a moral question," Hammitt said. "At the simplest level, we say a life is a life, any death is a death. But since obviously we all die sometime, it's worth stepping back to look at the idea where a young death is worse than an old death, because a young person has longer to live."

Graham said his agency was looking at the scientific foundations of its analyses "and will continue to refine their use in regulatory analysis."

NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you.

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presentedthis site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in Freedom-School.com search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)

Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at Freedom-School.com

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.